Instead of charging extra for long-distance recruiting per action (i.e. you have to fly to-and-back from Slovenia every time you visit a slovenian recruit) how about this:

-You can visit/scout players in only one state per cycle
-All home visits and scouting trips are a flat fee
-you have to pay a "travel fee" to go to a new state at the beginning of each cycle, charge more for farther jumps
-You can only host campus visits while you're in your own state

You could also impose limits for each cycle, or not (maybe you have a limited number of moves of any kind per cycle but if you don't use them, you can fit travelling to a 2nd state in there if you'd like, but that takes up a move)

There are a number of positives and negatives that would go with this strategy...i'm pretty confident it would be a net-positive and, most importantly, a LOT more fun.

-lets say you did impose limits on moves per cycle...you could give the option of travelling state-to-state by 'land' or by 'air' - travelling by land is cheaper, but travelling by air is quicker

-more complete scouting reports would go well with this

-recruits could give you hints as to if other schools are contacting them, providing info to guide your travel strategy

-schools that wanted to lock down their state could do so if they wanted; schools that wanted to scout internationally on a small budget could realistically do that as well

-You could perhaps send your assistant coach around as another strategic piece. His efforts wouldnt be worth as much, obviously. Perhaps he does the random scouting reports and you do the complete ones?

your strategy would effectively force d1 schools to all stay in state for the first cycle, and use all CVs - so that they could recruit several players off the bat (well, could use HVs/SVs for in state recruits). not really sure that would make things more interesting.

Add me to that list under milwood. Gives a huge advantage to those who are able to engage in activity every cycle--unlike those of us who might be spending many of those hours doing something else--but yes, double thumbs-up for creativity.

Posted by gillispie1 on 4/4/2013 3:47:00 PM (view original):your strategy would effectively force d1 schools to all stay in state for the first cycle, and use all CVs - so that they could recruit several players off the bat (well, could use HVs/SVs for in state recruits). not really sure that would make things more interesting.

i like billyg's input because it confirms he actually thinks about everything

how about this...

instead of limiting your recruiting to one state at a time, the action costs under the current system are just adjusted?

like this: depending on the "locations" where your recruiting actions take place during a cycle, end up paying as if you had to travel from spot-to-spot for HV's and ST's. this would make distance recruiting more financially feasible as with the other idea, without the restrictions.

What is the objective you are trying to achieve with these ideas? I have always proposed keeping the 360 mi radius prices the same but based on prestige making long distance recruiting cheaper the better the prestige. In theory it would create a more realistic national recruiting situation while still allowing schools to protect & battle in their backyard. Not sure if it would work but u could have a lot more A+ prestige battles and allow for more players to slip down to lower prestige teams, or it could allow for conferences like the ACC in Allen to dominate that much more if its possible

a few things...make it more difficult for top schools to nail down a large number of top recruits, permit more nationalized recruiting without increasing the dominance of top schools, make it so recruiting is more than just a silent auction between schools.

**these are all opinions of slyman9**
#1) the elite schools (UK, UNC, Duke, etc) in real life get most of the McDonalds All Americans and everyone else have to fight for whats left and that's more or less what is happening in HD so I don't personally think that is too much of an issue.
#2) I couldn't agree any more with nationalized recruiting but to say without increasing the dominance of top schools is totally opposite of the direction that I think things should go because I don't think the top schools should be penalized (the facts are that they are elite for a reason and therefore have certain advantages over everyone else).
#3 I'm definitely open for discussion on this as Im not positive what exactly you have in mind but for starters I would love to have Word on the Street updated much more frequently.

I think a lot of owners see the elite (A+ & A prestige) DI teams getting a bunch of highly rated recruits and automatically think there is some issue that needs to be fixed. However IF DII and DIII functioned in the same way as DI where there are cut and dry rankings of who the best recruits are, then more people would be making the same arguments that the top teams are too powerful at these levels as well. As it stands though because of the ability to pulldown, there are no DII and DIII top 200 lists and thus no cries for change. To this end, I would like to see more nationalized recruiting with it being cheaper to recruit across the country the higher the prestige and at the same time for prices inside the magic 360 mi radius to decrease more from the levels they are already at. This would give the smaller "regional (mid-major)" programs the ability to defend their backyards' from aggressors that are at distance much like real life recruiting functions today